Military wants answers on key torture report

[Born Free]

Before trying to broadly characterize the Harper government as thugs, why not try to prove a simple assertion you've made first? Prove that the government engaged in character assassination with respect to Colvin.

I see that you dont deny that they labled Colvin as a dupe and a suspect source. Political thuggery at its finest. Not unlike harper labeling Paul Martin as being soft on child porn.

MacKay is a political thug of the highest order and has been taught by one of the best.

[Gabriel]

I see that you dont deny that they labled Colvin as a dupe and a suspect source. Political thuggery at its finest. Not unlike harper labeling Paul Martin as being soft on child porn.

MacKay is a political thug of the highest order and has been taught by one of the best.

They didn't label him a dupe, neither did I not "deny" that such a label was used to describe Colvin. I've said this bout ten times, now, saying someone has been duped isn't the same as calling someone a dupe. You are frustratingly dishonest. And you still haven't provided any evidence to support your assertion that the government engaged in character assassination with respect to Colvin. Go bother someone else.

[capricorn]

saying someone has been duped isn't the same as calling someone a dupe.

Saying someone was duped, as the Conservatives asserted about Colvin, is commentary/opinion. Calling a person engaged in foreign affairs a dupe or a terrorist sympathizer could be interpreted as slander and character assassination. I haven't heard that Colvin's lawyer issued the government a cease and desist order to stop slandering their client nor was there a lawsuit. I'm sure we would have heard if this had occurred. The Liberals should have stuck to the facts. They overplayed their hand by drawing attention to an aspect that involved Colvin's character and clouded the very issue under consideration.

[Gabriel]

Saying someone was duped, as the Conservatives asserted about Colvin, is commentary/opinion. Calling a person engaged in foreign affairs a dupe or a terrorist sympathizer could be interpreted as slander and character assassination. I haven't heard that Colvin's lawyer issued the government a cease and desist order to stop slandering their client nor was there a lawsuit. I'm sure we would have heard if this had occurred. The Liberals should have stuck to the facts. They overplayed their hand by drawing attention to an aspect that involved Colvin's character and clouded the very issue under consideration.

As you've said, they did a very good job of this as many folks are parroting these lies, as is evidenced in this very thread by Born Free. Born Free seems to honestly believe that the government did engage in personal attacks against Colvin, which simply isn't true. I had a semi-passionate argument with a the mother of a close friend of mine (god bless her, it's a great family, although they lean HARD to the left!) who kept insisting that the Canadian government had indeed denigrated Colvin in a slanderous attack. I could could not convince her otherwise, and she is staunchly anti-Harper and will believe anything tht reinforces hi political predispositions. It simply never happened, but she had made up her mind about - perhaps she had watched that CTV clip after the alleged character assassination of Colvin by MacKay! Yet the Liberal party, NDP, and much of the media seems to purport this myth that this slander did indeed happen. It was sad to see the opposition members like Ujjal Dosanjh (sp?) go on television and lie about the Conservatives personally attacking Colvin, and none of the media challenged these statements as false! Opposition member after opposition member was given a free ride to make the false claims and none of the media persons I watched challenged this lie. If Colvin was so slandered, surely it would be easy to find the quotes online. It's not as if there's a shortage of critiques of the Harper government out there. If anything, quite the opposite is true.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Gabriel

[msdogfood]

Not sure I agree entirely because Chretien did shut the Inquiry down. I seem to recall that they had one of his deputy guys on the witness list but the inquiry was prevented from getting into examining the government guys and their possible role in the matter.

In any event, General Hillier is responsible to see to it that his detainees were treated in accordance with the Geneva conventions - not to keep his eyes firmly shut and then declare that he did not see any torture. Anyone with half a brain would automatically assume that when handing prisoners over to the Afghans the likliehood of torture was very high. Hillier made no personal effort to make sure that torture didnt happen.

Oh well....onward and upward. Remember, Harper is the guy, when opposition, declared that the Canadian Army needs to be sent to Iraq. - As PM he claimed that he only said that to scare Saddam.

True this time its an internal investigation by JAG not preliminary!!

[Born Free]

Saying someone was duped, as the Conservatives asserted about Colvin, is commentary/opinion. Calling a person engaged in foreign affairs a dupe or a terrorist sympathizer could be interpreted as slander and character assassination. I haven't heard that Colvin's lawyer issued the government a cease and desist order to stop slandering their client nor was there a lawsuit. I'm sure we would have heard if this had occurred. The Liberals should have stuck to the facts. They overplayed their hand by drawing attention to an aspect that involved Colvin's character and clouded the very issue under consideration.

Was any evidence of his being duped brought forth? I dont think so. Was any evidence that he was a "suspect source" put forth to substantiate that claim? I dont think so. This crap only adds to the classic thuggery campaigns that good people are too often subjected to.

This classic political horsepoop has been used on others as was the case in their ridiculous public statement regarding Paul Martin being soft on child porn. If you want to ignore that kind of stuff being employed by our politicians regardless of what party they belong...so be it.

Bitching about Liberal happenings while sloughing off Harper's past storm trooper tactics is pure hypocricy.

[Gabriel]

Was any evidence of his being duped brought forth? I dont think so. Was any evidence that he was a "suspect source" put forth to substantiate that claim? I dont think so. This crap only adds to the classic thuggery campaigns that good people are too often subjected to.

This classic political horsepoop has been used on others as was the case in their ridiculous public statement regarding Paul Martin being soft on child porn. If you want to ignore that kind of stuff being employed by our politicians regardless of what party they belong...so be it.

Bitching about Liberal happenings while sloughing off Harper's past storm trooper tactics is pure hypocricy.

I still don't know why you're bringing up the irrelevant 'soft on child porn' statement (which I am unfamiliar with, by the way). This thread is about something else. And most recently you're being challenged on your false statement that the government engaged in character assassination against Colvin. The 'evidence' of Colvin being duped was the government's commentary regarding Colvin's discussions with two former detainees. These detainees may or may not have been transferred to Afghan security's custody by Canadian forces. These detainees may or may not be part of the Taliban. The government was (rightly) chastising Colvin for using his discussions with these former detainees as the foundation for his irresponsible comments that all detainees transferred from Canadian forces to the Afghan security's custody were 'likely mistreated'. This opinion of the government is why Colvin was described as a "suspect source". This does not amount to character assassination. You can keep lying all you want, we're not going to let you get away with it.

It's been several says now and you haven't been able to show where the government engaged in character assassination against Colvin. Show us the transcripts. Show us the video. Show us something! Otherwise, stop trying so hard to build this house of cards.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Gabriel

[Born Free]

I still don't know why you're bringing up the irrelevant 'soft on child porn' statement (which I am unfamiliar with, by the way).

Here is my two fold answer.

- Because its evidence of the typical brutal thuggery practiced by Harper & Co. Thats what you & I have been discussing. NOT just the Colvin material... which is simply more of the same thuggery.

- Perhaps you might be reminded with this 2004 story.

LINK

Now...where is the evidence that Colvin is a "suspect source"? Where is the evidence that he was "duped"?

Before a minister elects to drop a bad name on a government employee, he/she ought to have a "cintilla" of evidence. Especially on an employee that was sent by Ottawa to serve as an intelligence officer in Washington.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Born Free

[Gabriel]

You're the one who brought up allegations of Harper "thuggery" when you couldn't come up with real evidence to support the false claim that MacKay and company slandered Colvin. Colvin hasn't been personally attacked by the government. Your misrepresentations of the "suspect source" and "duped" quotes have already been addressed. We can keep playing this game of ring around the rosie or you can simply concede that MacKay and the government didn't attack Colvin's characters, but rather his judgement and assertions in this case. Nobody cares about these apparent "soft of child porn" comments that you keep trying to bring up in an effort to deflect to something broader that you may have an easier time supporting. Stay on topic.

[Born Free]

Nobody cares about these apparent "soft of child porn" comments that you keep trying to bring up in an effort to deflect to something broader that you may have an easier time supporting. Stay on topic.

Apparent comments re "soft on child porn"? You make me laugh. I gave you a reference. Didnt you read it? It wasnt apparent. It was a fact.

Your opinions come across as though your are willingly being "duped" by Harper and anything you might write further in this matter is simply something from a "suspect source".

Edited February 4, 2010 by Born Free

[capricorn]

Was any evidence of his being duped brought forth? I dont think so.

Was any evidence brought forward that he was not duped or reacting to incorrect and perhaps second and third hand information?

Colvin triumphed because he had spent 18 months on Afghan soil, visited its prisons and talked to detainees allegedly turned over by Canadian soldiers.

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/General+attack+dogs+unleashed+diplomat/2268629/story.html

Allegedly meaning it was not determined as fact that the detainees Colvin spoke to were ever in the custody of Canadians. He may well have been duped by the detainees claiming mistreatment into thinking they were turned over by our soldiers. Some of those prisoners would have done or said anything to denigrate our soldiers and blacken their name.

[Born Free]

Was any evidence brought forward that he was not duped or reacting to incorrect and perhaps second and third hand information?

The term "allegedly turned over" is the story lines words simply because (according to the story) the correspondence is being held in secret by the Military/Government.

If a Minister is gonna call a respected diplomat names or apply labels, then to avoid being labled a thug (which the Harper troops have been proven to be so given their documented history of apologies) ... the proof can only come from the Minister.

[Gabriel]

Apparent comments re "soft on child porn"? You make me laugh. I gave you a reference. Didnt you read it? It wasnt apparent. It was a fact.

Your opinions come across as though your are willingly being "duped" by Harper and anything you might write further in this matter is simply something from a "suspect source".

I don't care about the story, it's not the purpose of this thread. Clearly you are determined to derail this thread into something else, as you can't substantiate the claim that the government reduced itself to personal insults on Colvin. You're either unable or unwilling to recognize that the government critiqued Colvin' assertion and support, not his character. The reason I'm sceptical of your "soft on child porn" claims is because I don't trust you. After reviewing the source, it indeed is a dumb thing for a campaign to suggest that Martin is somehow in favour of child porn. Also of note is that the campaign withdrew that slanderous message within one minute of its release. Anyways, it's irrelevant to this thread. Either corroborate your claims of government engagement in slander with respect to Colvin or just stop wasting time. This is so unbelievably repetitive and annoying. I can't keep playing this stupid game with you.

[Gabriel]

Was any evidence brought forward that he was not duped or reacting to incorrect and perhaps second and third hand information?

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/General+attack+dogs+unleashed+diplomat/2268629/story.html

Allegedly meaning it was not determined as fact that the detainees Colvin spoke to were ever in the custody of Canadians. He may well have been duped by the detainees claiming mistreatment into thinking they were turned over by our soldiers. Some of those prisoners would have done or said anything to denigrate our soldiers and blacken their name.

It's not unheard of that enemy combatants and terrorist exploit our human rights values to their advantage. They are aware that civilized countries such as Canada have internal mechanisms for adhering to international standards. Our enemies aren't stupid, they're known to lie about things in order to advance their interests. Does this mean that every claim of mistreatment and abuse from a detainee is a lie from a terrorist? No, but let's not believe every claim their make that they are victimized when in custody, either. Colvin's support for his assertion were largely (or was it entirely?) based on his talks with two former detainees, who may or may not have been captured by Canadian forces. Colvin could have done two things better, A> he could have done more research into substantiating his claims that "all detainees were likely tortured", or B> he could have been more careful in his assertions, and not assumed that based on his limited information that "all detainees were likely tortured".

Edited February 4, 2010 by Gabriel

[Gabriel]

The term "allegedly turned over" is the story lines words simply because (according to the story) the correspondence is being held in secret by the Military/Government.

If a Minister is gonna call a respected diplomat names or apply labels, then to avoid being labled a thug (which the Harper troops have been proven to be so given their documented history of apologies) ... the proof can only come from the Minister.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still untrue that MacKay or other in the government used personal insults against Colvin. Questioning the validity of his assertions isn't the same as calling him a mean name.

[Born Free]

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still untrue that MacKay or other in the government used personal insults against Colvin. Questioning the validity of his assertions isn't the same as calling him a mean name.

He wasnt questioning the validity of his assertions. He was applying a lable on the guy. Stop being a dupe.

[Born Free]

Colvin's support for his assertion were largely (or was it entirely?) based on his talks with two former detainees,

Surely you must be aware that three cabinet ministers (Including MacKay) met with the head of the International Red Cross in the fall of 2006 and were alerted to the matter of Afghans possibly torturing prisoners. Then we have General Hillier denying he ever heard of any suggestions of torture allegations. Ha!~ That would be impossible unless the report of that meeting with the IRC guy was never discussed with Hillier...which would make Mackay a THUG and a LIAR.

Read the following info and tell me with a straight face that the Canadian military wasnt made aware of torture allegations and that they did absolutely nothing about it. Who's zoomin' who here?

"To be clear and precise about this, last weeks evidence states categorically that the very high risk of torture in Afghan prisons was first made known to senior members of the Canadian Forces in May of 2006 and repeatedly thereafter," General Gauthier said.

"In actual fact, I and others received such warnings in a substantial way for the first time more than a year later than that."

Gauthier also said that Colvin's 2006 reports from May to September never mentioned the risk of torture or suspected torture. He said the word torture does appear in a Dec. 4 report, but could be "reasonably interpreted to be a warning of torture."

"I can very safely say there is nothing in any of these 2006 reports that caused any of the subject matter experts on my staff nor by extension me to be alerted to either the fact of torture or a very high risk of torture. Nothing," Gauthier said.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Born Free

[DrGreenthumb]

Born free seems to be pretty accurate while Gabriel appears to be clueless. It seems Gabriel just doesn't want to believe that his beloved Conservatives could stoop as low as they have.

Just an observation.

[Born Free]

Questioning the validity of his assertions isn't the same as calling him a mean name.

Clearly the standard you have set for the Ministers of our government is to accept them calling one of their good employees a "mean name" in a public forum .... so be it.

Perhaps you might wish to read how government thugs are treating witnesses who come forth.

STORY #1

STORY #2

[Gabriel]

Clearly the standard you have set for the Ministers of our government is to accept them calling one of their good employees a "mean name" in a public forum .... so be it.

Perhaps you might wish to read how government thugs are treating witnesses who come forth.

STORY #1

STORY #2

Colvin wasn't even called a name, though. That's just a lie from some critics that's you're parroting in here. You've been called on it endless times, now. Suggesting that Colvin's been duped doesn't qualify as character assassination or thuggery. It appears that the highest degree of partisanship is coming from your posts with your obsession in trying to advance some sort o fantasy that MacKay and the Conservatives are "thugs". That may or may not be true, but if you're trying to argue that opinion perhaps you better start another thread, as this thread isn't about the broader subject of how political parties conduct themselves, or which political parties deserve a shiny sticker for good behaviour.

With respect to your links, I'm now convinced that you don't read articles in their entirety and simply read the headlines. The headline from the first article you linked - "Colvin being punished by government: lawyer". Alright, so Colvin's lawyer is complaining that future payments for his services from the government fund to protect civil servants are uncertain. It should be noted that this uncertain status of payment was only accurate at the time of the article, as the government has since given Colvin the green light to receive more funds for the legal services he's utilizing. At the time of the article, Colvin had already spent $21000 allotted to him from the government fund. He certainly has an expensive legal team, given the fact that this story broke when, in November? I'm not certain at what point Colvin availed himself of legal services, but he's definitely burning through a lot of cash. That's easy to do when it isn't your own money, of course.

So let's recap major points from the article - Colvin's legal team accuses the government of trying to keep Colvin out of future hearings by not yet approving him for further funds for legal services. The money has since been given to Colvin and apparently he'll be permitted to testify at the commission(s), apparently resuming on March 22. So, that point's invalid. Here's the link to a more recent article indicating that "Colvin fees to be paid". He's permitted to consume up to $50000 on legal fees.

Other points from the article - opposition critics accusing the government of obfuscating justice. Is this really surprising? Do opposition accusations now hold some sort of special status as absolute truth? They're only slightly more dishonest than you, Born Free.

It's suddenly occurred to me that I have wasted way too much time and effort talking to you. I am not finding this exchange to be interesting. I would comment on the second article, but you probably haven't read that one, either. At the very least, I can expect you to mischaracterize the facts of the story. I just don't enjoy talking to someone like you.

The fact remains - this government has not engaged in character assassination with Richard Colvin, no matter how hard you try to misquote statements or deflect from the core themes of this thread.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Gabriel

[Born Free]

Colvin wasn't even called a name, though.

Yer right. I'll use your words...it was a "mean name".

With respect to your links, I'm now convinced that you don't read articles in their entirety and simply read the headlines.

No t'is you who never read the links. If you did, clearly you are asserting that Colvins former lawyer Lori Bokenfohr was lying in her assertion that letters were issued by the government telling witnesses that their professional reputations could be on the line if they co-operated with commission interviewers who were described as interrogators.

Yer at least consistent. You've called me dishonest in the past as well....which wasnt true of course.

Give it a rest. Your guys are scuzzbags and you are condoning it. Shame on you.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Born Free

[PIK]

Yer right. I'll use your words...it was a "mean name".

No t'is you who never read the links. If you did, clearly you are asserting that Colvin’s former lawyer Lori Bokenfohr was lying in her assertion that letters were issued by the government telling witnesses that their professional “reputations” could be on the line if they co-operated with commission interviewers who were described as “interrogators.”

Yer at least consistent. You've called me dishonest in the past as well....which wasnt true of course.

Give it a rest. Your guys are scuzzbags and you are condoning it. Shame on you.

All harpers fault, I can't get over the BS on this board,l lets discuss what and when the liberals knew ,you know the govermnet that sent us to afghanistan without the proper equipment, something that harper and mackay have fixed since taking over. Sending our troops over they with nothing was criminal.

[capricorn]

All harpers fault, I can't get over the BS on this board,

Welcome, PIK. Give it time. The BS here kinda grows on you and strengthens your immune system.

l lets discuss what and when the liberals knew ,you know the govermnet that sent us to afghanistan without the proper equipment, something that harper and mackay have fixed since taking over. Sending our troops over they with nothing was criminal.

There are no expiry dates on Conservative transgressions. On the other hand, Liberal sins are explained away as necessary evils to fix problems presumably created by past non-Liberal governments.

[Born Free]

All harpers fault, I can't get over the BS on this board,l lets discuss what and when the liberals knew ,you know the govermnet that sent us to afghanistan without the proper equipment, something that harper and mackay have fixed since taking over. Sending our troops over they with nothing was criminal.

Speaking of BS....

This is about the Harper Government trying to cover up what was clearly a serious boo boo of their own doing.

[M.Dancer]

Speaking of BS....

This is about the Harper Government trying to cover up what was clearly a serious boo boo of their own doing.

Hardly their own doing. It was the Liberals who changed the process which started having prisoners turned over to the Afghans.